MICT-13-56-A 9372 A9372-A9166 01 February 2019 SF UNITED NATIONS Case No: MICT-13-56-A International Residual Mechanism Date: 1 February 2019 for Criminal Tribunals Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Prisca Matimba Nyambe, Presiding Judge Aminatta Lois Runeni N’gum Judge Gberdao Gustave Kam Judge Seymour Panton Judge Elizabeth Ibanda-Nahamya Registrar: Mr. Olufemi Elias THE PROSECUTOR v. RATKO MLADI] PUBLIC NOTICE OF FILING OF PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF PROSECUTION RESPONSE BRIEF The Office of the Prosecutor: Counsel for Ratko Mladi}: Laurel Baig Branko Luki} Barbara Goy Dragan Iveti} 9371 1. The Prosecution hereby files a public redacted version of its Response Brief. 1 Word Count: 25 ____________________ Laurel Baig Senior Appeals Counsel Dated this 1st day of February 2019 At The Hague, The Netherlands 1 Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladi} , Case No. MICT-13-56-A, Prosecution Response Brief, 14 November 2018. Case No. MICT-13-56-A 1 1 February 2019 Public 9370 UNITED NATIONS Case No: MICT-13-56-A International Residual Mechanism Date: 14 November 2018 for Criminal Tribunals Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Prisca Matimba Nyambe, Presiding Judge Aminatta Lois Runeni N’gum Judge Gberdao Gustave Kam Judge Seymour Panton Judge Elizabeth Ibanda-Nahamya Registrar: Mr. Olufemi Elias THE PROSECUTOR v. RATKO MLADI] PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION PROSECUTION RESPONSE BRIEF The Office of the Prosecutor: Counsel for Ratko Mladi}: Laurel Baig Branko Luki} Barbara Goy Dragan Iveti} Katrina Gustafson 9369 Contents I. RATKO MLADIĆ’S APPEAL LACKS MERIT .................................................. 5 II. GROUND 1: MLADI] WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED FOR UNSCHEDULED INCIDENTS ........................................................................... 6 A. THE INDICTMENT IS NOT DEFECTIVE ....................................................................... 6 B. MLADI } HAD ADDITIONAL NOTICE OF CHALLENGED INCIDENTS .......................... 10 C. MLADI }’ S DEFENCE WAS NOT PREJUDICED ........................................................... 21 III. GROUND 2: MLADI] SHOWS NO ERROR IN THE CHAMBER’S APPROACH TO ADJUDICATED FACTS ..................................................... 24 A. MLADIĆ SHOWS NO COGENT REASONS TO REVERSE WELL -ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE ON ADJUDICATED FACTS NOR ANY ABUSE OF DISCRETION (2.A.1) ............................................................................................................... 24 B. MLADIĆ SHOWS NO ERROR IN THE CHAMBER ’S APPROACH TO REBUTTAL EVIDENCE (2.A.2) ............................................................................................... 27 1. Mladi} fails to show that the Chamber erroneously created an “additional requirement” to rebut adjudicated facts ........................................................ 27 2. Mladi} fails to show that the Chamber applied an improper standard to rebuttal evidence ........................................................................................... 28 IV. GROUND 3: MLADI] IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES COMMITTED PURSUANT TO THE OVERARCHING JCE ................................................ 31 A. THE CHAMBER PROPERLY ASSESSED MUNICIPALITIES ADJUDICATED FACTS (3.A.2) ............................................................................................................... 31 1. Mladi} shows no error in the Chamber’s analysis of Incident B.16.2 ............. 32 2. Mladi} shows no error in the Chamber’s analysis of Incident B.10.2 ............. 33 B. MLADI } WAS A MEMBER OF THE OVERARCHING JCE (3.A.3) ............................... 34 1. Mladi} did not act to protect non-Serbs (3.A.3.3.1) ........................................ 35 2. Mladi} fails to show any error in the Chamber’s analysis of a handful of notebook entries (3.A.3.3.2) .......................................................................... 38 3. Mladi} shows no error in the Chamber’s analysis of his JCE participation (3.A.3.3.3) ..................................................................................................... 40 4. The Chamber reasonably found Mladi} contributed to the common purpose through his command and control of the VRS (3.A.3.3.4) ........................... 41 C. MLADI } SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE JCE (3.B.3 – 3.B.5) .................... 41 1. Mladi} contributed to furthering the common purpose through his command and control of MUP forces at Manja~a camp (3.B.3) ................................... 42 2. Mladi} exercised effective command and control over VRS units (3.B.4) ..... 43 3. Mladi} failed to take appropriate or further steps to investigate or punish perpetrators of crimes (3.B.5) ....................................................................... 46 D. MLADI } POSSESSED THE REQUISITE JCE MENS REA (3.B.6 – 3.B.8) ...................... 53 1. The Chamber properly assessed Mladi}’s JCE mens rea (3.B.6) .................... 53 2. Mladi} shows no error in the Chamber’s assessment of direct or circumstantial evidence of mens rea (3.B.7) ................................................. 56 3. The Chamber properly relied on Mladi}’s Assembly speeches (3.B.8) .......... 61 V. GROUND 4: MLADI] IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIMES IN SARAJEVO ......................................................................................................... 64 Case No. MICT-13-56-A 1 14 November 2018 Public Redacted Version 9368 A. THE ICTY HAD JURISDICTION OVER TERROR (4.A.1 AND 4.A.2) .......................... 66 1. Terror is a crime under customary international law (4.A.1) .......................... 66 2. The crime of terror was sufficiently defined and foreseeable to Mladi} (4.A.2) ........................................................................................................... 68 B. SARAJEVO AS A WHOLE WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET (4.A.3) ........ 69 C. MLADI } AND OTHER JCE MEMBERS SHARED A COMMON CRIMINAL PURPOSE OF SPREADING TERROR IN SARAJEVO (4.A.4) .......................................................... 71 1. The Chamber reasonably interpreted Mladi}’s 16 th Assembly Session statements (4.A.4.4) ...................................................................................... 72 2. The Chamber appropriately relied on its factual findings on the crimes to conclude the existence of the common purpose and Mladi}’s shared intent (4.A.4.5) ........................................................................................................ 78 3. The Chamber considered and appropriately discounted Mladi}’s orders prohibiting firing at civilians (4.A.4.6) ......................................................... 79 D. THE SRK PERPETRATORS OF THE CAMPAIGN POSSESSED THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO SPREAD TERROR (4.A.5) ..................................................................................... 80 E. THE CHAMBER ’S FINDINGS ON THE SARAJEVO CRIME BASE ARE SOUND (4.B) ...... 82 1. The SRK targeted civilians through a massive bombardment of Sarajevo on 28 and 29 May 1992 (Incident G.1) (4.B.3.1) ............................................... 82 2. The Chamber properly relied on adjudicated facts in relation to Sarajevo (4.B.3.2) ......................................................................................................... 89 3. The Chamber properly concluded that the SRK perpetrators of Incidents G.6 and G.7 had the intent to commit murder, unlawful attacks and terror (4.B.3.3) ......................................................................................................... 92 4. The Chamber reasonably found the SRK responsible for fire originating from SRK-held territory (4.B.3.4) ................................................................. 94 VI. GROUND 5: MLADI] IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTED PURSUANT TO THE SREBRENICA JCE .......................... 96 A. THE CHAMBER REASONABLY FOUND MLADI} TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SREBRENICA JCE (5.A) ...................................................................................... 96 1. The Chamber reasonably found Mladi} was a member of the Srebrenica JCE which included forcible transfer (5.A.2) ............................................... 97 2. The Chamber reasonably found that Mladi} was a member of the Srebrenica JCE which included killing the Bosnian Muslim males (5.A.3) ................... 99 B. MLADI } SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE JCE (5.B) .................................. 104 1. Mladi} exercised command and control over Bosnian Serb Forces throughout the implementation of the common purpose (5.B.2.2.1) .......... 104 2. Mladi} exercised command and control over MUP units (5.B.2.2.2) ........... 107 3. Mladi} significantly contributed to the Srebrenica JCE by issuing orders (5.B.2.2.3) .................................................................................................... 110 4. The intercept evidence is authentic and reliable (5.B.2.2.4) .......................... 114 5. Mladi} failed to take adequate steps to investigate and punish perpetrators (5.B.2.2.5) .................................................................................................... 117 C. MLADI } SHARED THE INTENT TO ACHIEVE THE COMMON PURPOSE OF THE SREBRENICA JCE (5.D) .................................................................................... 122 1. Mladi}’s statements and actions demonstrate his shared intent (5.D.2.1) ..... 123 2. Mladi}’s orders further demonstrate his shared intent (5.D.2.2) ................... 127 D. THE CHAMBER PROPERLY EVALUATED THE STATUS OF THE VICTIMS OF THE SREBRENICA